PA 

-Si Archaisms of Terence mentioned! 
the Commentary of Donatus 



KIR BY WILLIAMS^SMITH 



THESIS: 1889 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVKRSII V 



BALTIMORE 

PRESS OF ISAAC FR1EDEN W W.I> 

1890 




Book lS_jL 



Archaisms of Terence mentioned in 
the Commentary of Donatns 



KIRBY WH.-L-IAM5 SMITH 



THESIS: 1889 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 



BALTIMORE 

PRESS OF ISAAC FRIEDENWALD 

189O 



CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Donatus : Life. Works i 

Commentary on Terence: 

History, authorities, editions, special work, condition of Gk. words, 

etc i 

Archaism of Terence mentioned by Don. : 

Authorities, Don. idea of an archaism, its definition, periphrases 
for apxaicr.uoc, limit in time of his archaisms, range of authors 

quoted, number of usages noted, etc 2 

Plan of Arrangement 4 

I. Of the Sentence in general. 

1. Figures : 

irapeAKov 5 

TcapofioLov, Trapovotxaala 9 

Ellipsis, etc 11 

Figura etymologica 13 

dfioioreXevrov 13 

Irony 13 

2. Position : enim, nam, etc 14 

3. Construction according to sense 14 

4. Attraction 15 

5. Old formulae 15 

II. Of Single Words, etc. 

1. Words obsolete or rare as noted by Donatus: 

Nouns 16 

Pronouns 16 

Verbs 17 

Adverbs 17 

2. Words, the meaning of which has changed, etc. : 

Nouns iS 

Adjectives 20 

Verbs 20 

Adverbs 22 



IV 

3- Changes in form, inflections, etc. : 

Nouns 2 ., 

Pronouns 24 

Verbs .,,. 

2 d 

Adverbs 26 

4. Peculiarities in gender * 2 6 

5. Syntax : 

Nouns 27 

Verbs 2 g 

Adverbs ^ 

III. General Remarks : 

Derivation 30 

Orthography o X 

Conclusion 



J 

Life 



33 



ARCHAISMS OF TERENCE MENTIONED IN THE 
COMMENTARY OF DONATUS. 

Introduction. 

In the chronicle of Eusebius, at the year 354 A. D., A. U. C. 
110S, St. Jerome says : '" Victorinus rhetor et Donatus gramma- 
ticus, praeceptor meus, Romae insignes habentur." In his com- 
ment on Eccles. ch. 1, St. Jerome again calls him " praeceptor 
meus," and in his Apol. adv. Rufinum 1. 16 he addresses him a 
third time by that title, also mentioning his commentaries on 
Terence and Vergil. 

At the close of the commentary to each play of Terence, 
Donatus is designated as " Orator Urbis Romae." It is not 
settled whether, as is probably the case, he held some official 
position entitling him to that name, or he preferred to be called 
11 orator," i. e. " rhetor," rather than the humbler " grammaticu.-." 
This is all that is known of the life of Aelius Donatus, the 
grammarian. (See Schopen, " De Terentio et Donato eius Inter- 
prete," Bonn, 1821, p. 32 ff . ; Ribbeck, Proleg. Verg. p. 178 it ; 
Teuffel, Rom. Litt., pp. 959 and 960.) 

Works. 

1. A Commentary on the poems of Vergil; certainly the 
Georgics and Aeneid — probably the Eclogues. Servius refers to 
it oftener than to any other commentary on Vergil (twice in the 
Eclogues, nine times in the Georgics, and thirty-five times in the 
Aeneid), but otherwise none of it has been preserved. 

2. An " Ars Grammatica," consisting of two parts (Keil, Gram. 
Lat - IV > 355-402). 

3. A Commentary on the plays of Terence, which, barring the 
11 Hauton Timorumenos," we now possess. In its present con- 
dition this commentary is evidently a compilation from several 
others. One of them was doubtless the work of Euanthius, while, 
according to Usener (Rhein. Mus. 23. 493), notes of a philo- 
sophical or rhetorical character may be attributed to Donatus. 
Successive generations of scholars have contributed their share, 
extracts from other commentators have been added, new and con- 



flicting explanations have been offered by men of greater or less 
intelligence, and, finally, to complicate matters still further, a new 
race of commentators sprung up, interpreters of the notes them- 
selves, which by this time had become obscure. (Cf. Don. ad 
And. prol. 18 ; i. i. 28, etc. ; Umpfenbach, Hermes 2. 337 ff.) 

The fact that the work has, at different times, been compressed 
to fit the margin or the interlinear spaces of the MSS. of Terence 
makes it impossible that we can ever know the exact words of 
Donatus himself. We shall do well if we discover what his views 
were in every instance. 

Of the older editions the best are the Venice (1485) and 
Westerhovius (1726). The latest and, at present, the best is by 
Reinhold Klotz (Leipsic, 1838-40). 

Much was done to restore the original reading of the various 
scholia and to replace and sift passages either omitted or care- 
lessly treated by previous editors. At the same time there is need 
of a new and critical edition, embodying the results of the material 
which has been accumulating for the past seventy years, beginning 
with some important contributions by Schopen. (See also 
Umpfenbach, Hermes 2. 337-402; Dziatzko, Rhein. Mus. 29. 445 
ff. and 511 ; Jahrb. 10, Suppl. bd. ; Studemund, Jahrb. 97. 546 ff.) 

The Greek words and quotations in Donatus are in a deplorable 
state. Sometimes a space was left by the scribe to be filled in by 
some one more conversant with the language than himself, and it 
was never done ; often the words are confused or mutilated 
beyond recognition, or else omitted altogether, with a consequent 
confusion in the note. Klotz has done something to restore the 
text, but, of course, the task can hardly be other than a hopeless 
one. 

So much for a brief resumed Let us now turn our attention to 
the subject we had determined to consider, namely : The Archa- 
isms in Terence mentioned in the Commentary of Donatus. 

It is proposed to enquire what Donatus calls an archaism ; the 
value of his observations under this head, examined by the light 
of other observations, ancient and modern, in the same field, and 
whether any confusion in the text can thereby be detected. 

The commentator's idea of an archaism may be derived from a 
comparison of the various passages where he uses " dpxaio-fios" 
" veteres dicebant," and the like. In explaining the form " ornati " 
(Eun. 2.2.6), Donatus says: " Et ornati ut senati: antiquus 



genetivus." Especially important is the Schol. Bemb. 2d hand to 
the same passage: ". . . nos dicimus, ' huius ornatus.' Cet- 
erum archaismos est, id est, anttquitas exigit ' huius ornati.' Sic 
alibi, 'nihil ornati, nihil tumulti.' Et Salustius, ' igitur senati 
decreto.' " 

The quotation "nihil ornati, nihil tumulti," is from Andria 
2. 2. 28, where Donatus has the note : ". . . 'Apxaiapos. Sic 
Salustius, ' ergo senati decreto,' etc." Compare Hec. 3. 2. 21 : 
" Antiqui sic declinaverunt 'tumulti,' 'senati,' ut Salustius," etc., 
and Phorm. 1. 3. 2, where And. 2. 2. 28 is again referred to. 

Whenever, then, Donatus speaks of an archaism he calls atten- 
tion to something obsolete or old-fashioned in his own time. 
That such a " novarum rerum studiosus" as Terence should have 
made a conscious use of such expressions is, of course, out of the 
question. A number of equivalents or periphrases for the tech- 
nical " apxaiapos " are used. It can easily be shown, however, that 
Donatus has no thought of making any distinction. For in- 
stance: Eun. 3. 5. 39 ; 4. 3. 2 ; Adel. 5. 4. 5 the " figura etymolo- 
gica" is called " apxaiap.6s " ; in Phorm. prol. 19 "vetuste." In 
Adel. 5. 3. 55 both " apxa"«rp.6s " and " veteres dicebant " are used 
(cp. Phorm. 1. 2. 80; Eun. 2. 3. 82; 4. 4. 11). 

The expression oftenest used is " veteres dicebant ordixerunt," 
the latter often of some opinion held by the ancients themselves. 
Twice "dixere" (And. 1. 1. 28; 4. 4. 36). "'Apxaiapos" itself 
occurs something like a score of times, occasionally, like the 
others, accompanied by some qualifying expression. '"Ap^aico?" 
occurs once (Hec. 1. 2. no) and " olim " once (Hec. 1. 2.7); 
" apud veteres " ten times. So " vetuste," " antique," " vetusta 
declinatio or eXXet^i?," " veteres ponebant, scribebant, declinabant, 
addebant, proferebant, referebant, iungebant, figurabant, loque- 
bantur, legerunt," "usitatum veteribus," " usitatum est veteribus sic 
dicere," " vetus or antiqua locutio," " sic veteres loquebantur, nos 
vero dicimus," " ut veteres solent loqui," "sic veteres," "sic 
veteres dicere maluerunt," " secundum veteres or antiquos," 
"antiqui dicebant," "in veteribus invenitur," "hoc vetus est," 
" antique dicitur, dixit or locutus est," " sic frequenter veteres," 
"antiquorum more dixit," "sic veteres— nos, or quod nos," "nos 
dicimus," "quod or quae nos," "quod nos tantum," and "vete- 
ribus non placet." 

As far as one may judge from an investigation of his notes on 
that subject, most of the usages which Donatus terms archaisms 



became such, roughly speaking, about the beginning of the Empire. 
In fact, before that time many of them had passed over to the 
poets or to such conscious archaists as Sallust. That certain of 
them are to be found in authors like Fronto or Gellius goes rather 
to prove that they were then felt as archaisms than that they were 
a part of the living language. Gellius and his compeers, like a 
certain class of writers to-day, were very fond of tricking out style 
with the borrowed finery of the olden time. 

Of the authors quoted by Donatus for illustrations of archaic 
usage none, it will be noticed, are later than the time of Augustus. 
Most frequently quoted, of course, is Vergil (Aeneid 10. 641, 719; 
1-595; 3-183; 12.680; 4.93; 2.25; 6.765; 2.148,719; 3.685; 
4. 597. Eclogues 1. 30; 3. 1; 6. 47 ; 3. 102 (see, however, 
Hagen, Jahrb. 14. 472) — the Georgics are not quoted.) 

In addition, the list embraces Naevius (Bell. Pun.), Ennius 
(Annales and Medea), Plautus (Aul., Epid., Trim), Caecilius, 
Pacuvius, Accius, Lucilius, Cato, Pomponius, Varro, Tubero, 
Lucretius, Cicero, Sallust, and once, Horace. It does not follow, 
of course, that Donatus had read the authors he uses, for, as is 
well known, most of the quotations in the Latin grammarians 
were cited over and over again. Altogether, there are about one 
hundred and forty notices in Donatus of older usage, embracing a 
variety of subjects. Although the division cannot be rigidly 
exclusive, for convenience they may be classed under the fol- 
lowing general heads : 

I. Of the sentence in general. 

1. Figures. 

(<2.) ivapekKOV. 

(^.) napofxoiov — napopofj-aala. 

(c.~) eXXeiyf/is, etc. 

(<f.) " Figura etymologica." 

(e.) ofioioreXevTov* 

(/.) Irony. 

2. Position. 

3. Construction ace. to sense. 

4. Attraction. 

5. Old formulae. 

II. Nouns, adjectives, pronouns, etc. 

1. Words obsolete. 

2. Words changed in meaning. 

3. Peculiarities in form, gender, etc. 

4. Syntax. 



III. General. 

Derivation, orthography, etc. 

Following the order proposed, let us begin with the figures 
which Donatus looks upon as archaisms. (On the general subject 
of figures in Donatus, Hahn has written two important articles : 
" Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Scholien des Donat zum Terenz," 
Progr. Halberstadt, 1870 and '72. Special treatises will be men- 
tioned in their proper places.) 

{(Z.J 7rapeX<ov. 

(Hahn, Progr. 1872, p. 4 ff.) 

Under this category the confusion is something discouraging. 
At least three, if not more, commentators can be detected. Most 
of the notes containing such expressions as "abundat," "abun- 
dans," "ex abundantia " and the like doubtless belong here. In 
certain notes, as will be seen below, napCkKov was looked upon 
simply as an element of style. With reference to some expres- 
sions, e. g. " plerique omnes," a second commentator disputes 
this view. The expression, he says, is not ivapikKov but ap^aio-pos. 
Still a third tries to reconcile the two opposing views by saying 
that the expression is both napeX/cov and apxa'iapos. From this 
last seems to be drawn the inference visible in certain notes, pre- 
sumably by a fourth commentator, that napfXKov, wherever it 
occurs and whatever its character, is, in itself, an archaism. 
napfknov includes everything " abundans," whether a fault or an 
element of conscious art, whereas the pleonasmos, perissologia 
and tautologia of Donatus (Ars Gram.), to which it partly corres- 
ponds, refer only to a faulty fullness. The scholiast finally goes 
so far as to take napeXKou over into rhetoric and make it a regular 
figure of speech. (See Hahn for exx.) 

This registration of opposing views is best seen in the com- 
ment on " plerique omnes " (And. 1. 1. 28). The first note is by 
the supporter of the napeXKou theory : " Haec adiectio dicitur. in 
primo posita loco. Adiectiones vero aut in prima parte ora- 
tionis aut in ultima adiiciuntur. Hie ergo 'plerique' ex abun- 
dantia positum est: 'omnes' vero necessario additum est. Et 
alibi ' calesces plus satis ' (Eun. 1. 2. 5). In ultimo, sicut, ' interea 
loci,' ' interibi.' " Then the second commentator adds : " 'Apxaiop<k 
est. Nam errant qui ' plerique' -napCx K ov intellegunt aut qui sub- 
distinguunt 'plerique' et sic inferunt 'omnes.' Hoc enim pro 
una pars orationis dixere veteres. Eodem modo Graeci niipnoXXa 



et Latini ' plus satis ' " (quoting Naevius). Then follows a third 
commentator, who evidently tries to reconcile the two opposing 
theories by " Figurate Terentius napeXKov t<? apxala-pco" In Phorm. 
i. 3. 20 " plerique omnes," according to Hahn, we again meet the 
writer of the first note to And. 1. 1. 28 in the words " napiXKov 
tertium " (quoting And. 1. 1. 28), followed by his opponent: " Et 
est apxaio-fios ut ' plus satis ' (Eun. 1. 2. 5)." As the note stands, 
however, I see no reason why the third commentator of And. 

1. 1. 28 should not be the author of it. The first and second com- 
mentators are again met with in Eun. 1. 2. 5. No. 1, " Nove, sed 
intellegitur, etc." No. 2, " Nove sed intellegitur plus satis, etc." 

Writers of comments like the following must have drawn the 
conclusion from the preceding that all exx. of TrapeXnov were 
archaisms. 

Phorm. 5. 8. 11) " Adhuc curavi." "rw dpxa'iap.^ addidit 

adhuc' quum potuisset sine hoc integer sensus esse." Eun. 

5. 8. 5) " Scin me," " Cum sufficeret ' scin.' Ergo ' me ' abundat 

et est figura ap^aiV/xos-." (Cp. Schol. to Haut. 1. 1. 116, Hermes 

2. 338 ff., and for a full list of the examples in Donatus called 
•KapiXKov cp. Hahn, 1872, p. 5 ff.) 

Now let us enquire into the actual value of the comment above 
quoted. Is " plerique omnes " an archaism? Does it count as 
one word or is it an example of so-called napeXKov ? 

The expression may have been, and doubtless was at all 
periods, common in the everyday speech. However its origin is 
to be explained, that it was decidedly old-fashioned in the literary 
language seems amply proved by the examples of its use. (Ter. 
Phorm. 172, Haut. 830, Plaut. Trin. 29, where see Brix.) 

It is unfortunate that we have lost the passage in Gellius (8. 12) 
bearing especially on this question. The title, however, shows 
that he looked upon it as an archaism and as a single word, 
" Quid significet in veterum libris scriptum ' plerique omnes ' et 
quod ea verba accepta a Graecis videntur." It would appear that 
the second commentator of And. 1. 1. 28 (sup. p. 5) either drew 
his information from Gellius or from the same source with him. 
The remark " Eodem modo Graeci 7rap,7roXXa, etc." might very well 
correspond with something in Gellius under the head of: " quod 
ea verba accepta a Graecis videntur." 

Gellius himself, as might be expected, uses the expression 
frequently (e. g. 1. 3. 2 ; 1. 7. 4; 4. 17. 4; 14. 3. 1 ; 15. 7. 1, etc., 
once in 10. 24. 4 " pleraque omnis," 19. 12. 1 " univorsi omnes," 
cp. Ap. Met. 7. 189). 



In " plus satis " (Eun. i. 2. 5 ; Haut. 1. 2. 24) the ellipsis of 
quam is apparent. " Interibi " occurs six times in Plautus, once 
in Afranius, and again comes to the surface in Apuleius. In 
Gellius 3. 7. 17 the preferred reading is " interim." (See Brix and 
Lorenz, Miles, 104; Lorenz, Most. Introd., p. 31, note. For 
"plerique omnes," Spengel, And. 55. 2d ed. ; Dziatzko, Phorm. 
172 ; Brix, Trin. 29.) That " interea loci " is a parallel to " plerique 
omnes " except as an archaism is doubtful. I find it only in 
Plautus, Terence and Pacuvius. (Lorenz, Pseud. 255.) 

And. 1. 3. 18) " ' Is obiit mortem.' Plene dixit quod nos ' obiit ' 
tantum. Vergilius : ' morte obita, etc' " (A. 10. 641). Donatus' 
statement, as tested by examples, seems to be fairly correct. 
"Mortem obire," itself a euphemism, is old-fashioned or poetic. 
In later times the expression was still further softened to "obire." 
Examples show, however, that both " obire " and " obire mortem " 
were used as early as Plautus. 

" Mortem obire," Plaut. Aul. 15; Cic. Phil. 5. 17. 48, etc.; cp. 
"diem suum obire," Plaut. Cist. 1. 3. 27; Sulp. ap. Cic. Fam. 
4. 12. 2; Gell. 6. 8. 6, etc. 

" Obeo " alone, with or without the manner of death, is well 
represented. Plaut. Epid. 513 (Ritschl 'abeas ') ; Lucret. 3. 1045 ; 
Horace, Livy, Pliny, Tacitus, etc. 

And. 3. 5. 8) " 'Quid — me faciam.' Ablativus casus 'me.' Sed 
nos, 'quid faciam,' veteres autem 'me' addebant." (So Klotz 
after the Venice ed. Earlier edd. than K. omit " sed nos ff.") 

" Quid me faciam, etc.," is a conversational usage. The ablative 
is generally used, sometimes the dative, rarely the ablative with de. 

Ablative: Plaut. Bacch. 334, etc.; Ter. Haut. 462; Cic. Sest. 
13. 29, etc. 

Dative: Cic. Caecin. 11. 30, etc.; Hor. Sat. 1. 1. 63. 

Ablative with de : Plaut. Epid. 151 (Ritschl omits de); Ter. 
Adel. 996; Nepos, Them. 2. (See Spengel, And. 614; Lorenz, 
Most. 638 and 435 ; Schmalz, Lat. Gram., p. 280, n. 6.) 

As appears from the exx., this idiom was confined largely to 
Cicero and the comic writers. That it was so freely used by the 
latter shows that it must have been a favorite of the people, among 
whom it doubtless remained long after its disappearance from 
literature. 

Eun. 3. 5. 1) " ' Nemo homo est.' Quamvis per ' nemo ' 
'homo' intellegatur tamen addidit ' homo ' ut veteres solent t<£ 
apxaroyzew." Klotz marks this passage as spurious. Compare : 



8 

Adel. 2. 3. 6) "'Homini nemini.' Nove auribus nostris sed 
veterum consuetudine locutus est. Nam quum ' nemini ' homi- 
nem significet quid opus fuit dicere, 'homini nemini'? Sed lit 
diximus figura est apxa'io-fws." 

That Donatus ever called dpxaio-pos " figura " is more than 
doubtful. If, as Klotz thinks, the comment at Eun. 3. 5. 1 is 
spurious, it was possibly placed there by some one on account of 
the "ut diximus" at Adel. 2. 3. 6. The connection of the two is 
evident. Here it is instructive to compare Charisius (Keil 1. 96. 
15), who comments on the same usage, quoting Lucilius and 
Eun. 3. 5. 1. One is tempted to believe that all three notes came 
from the same source, the source whence Charisius and Donatus 
drew their material. 

With the foregoing compare the notes on " servum hominem " 
(Phorm. 2. 1. 62) and " homini adulescentulo " (And. 5. 1. 9). In 
each case the quotation from Sallust is identical. 

Compare also the comments on "nemo quisquam " and "nihil 
quicquam," both favorite expressions in the familiar speech and 
frequent in comedy. (See Dziatzko, Phorm. 80, and on " homo " 
Dz. Adel. 259; Phorm. 591 ; Holtze, 1. 343.J 

Adel. 2. 2. 16) " ' Praeterea autem.' 'Apxaiapos est figura." 
Then what is perhaps the addition of a later commentator : 
" Nam veteres libenter coniunctiones multiplicabant." 

The point of the note seems to be the pleonastic use of 
,( autem," the frequent employment of which, even in direct ques- 
tions, is a characteristic of comedy, and of Cicero, especially in the 
philosophical writings, where the conversational method is so 
much used. Much less frequent in the historians, owing to the 
more sedate character of their work. (See Schmalz, pp. 306 and 

403-) 

Adel. 5. 9. 1) " ' Suo sibi.' Non ' suo ' sed ' suo sibi,' moraliter 
ut et veteres solent loqui." "Emphatically, and also as the 
ancients used to speak." In both counts the commentator is cor- 
rect. This doubling of the pronoun is ante- and post-classic and 
colloquial. It is found in all three persons, oftenest in the third. 
Plautus and Terence use it, and Cicero in the epistles and earlier 
works. It does not appear again until the archaists of the second 
century. 

Examples are plentiful. Plautus, Poen. 1083; Persa, 81 ; Capt. 
81, etc.; Cicero, Phil. 2. 37. 96; Col. R. R. 12. 7. Then in late 
Latin: Gell. 5. 10. 16; 12. 1. 6; Apuleius, Met. 1. 104. 35; 106, 



9 

3i, and often. (See Schmalz, p. 402, par. 63. 2 ; Dz. Adel. 958; 
Brix, Trin. 156; Holtze, 1. 300.) 

Phorm. 1. 2. 80) "'Omnia haec.' Non ex abundanti posuit 
sed oratorie quasi tarn multa. Et est dpxaiapos. Nam post enu- 
merationem veteres ' hoc ' dicebant. Salustius in Iugurtha (85)." 
The words "Non ex abundanti — multa" appear to be directed 
against one of the frequent remarks on rrapeXKov which perhaps 
once stood here but has since dropped out. Hie very often refers 
to a notion preceding, rarely to one following. To sum up a 
number of particulars with " haec " or " haec omnia " is an especial 
characteristic of the style of Cato (R. R.) ; 8, 37, 73, 133, 51, 31, 
33. (See Holtze 1. 369; Draeg. 1. 83.) 

Phorm. 5. 4. 2) " ' Parare in animo, etc.' Vetuste additum est 
1 animo.' Ennius in sexto: " Sed quid ego hie animo lamentor " 
(Baehr. 145). 

It is difficult to discover anything especially old-fashioned in 
the expression " Parare in animo cupiditates." The quotation 
from Ennius does not seem an exact parallel. In "animo 
lamentor," "animo" might be considered as 'napeXKov,' but here 
the sense does not seem rounded without it. 

Judging from the examples, the use of "animo " with verbs of 
thinking is more or less peculiar to the elder literature. For 
instance : " cogitare cum animo," Ter. Adel. 500, Cato ap. Gell. 
16. 1. 4 ; Fronto 221. 7 ; " considerare in animo," Ter. Haut. 385 ; 
"cogitare in animo," Ter. Adel. 30, 818; "animo cogitare — stat- 
uere apud animum," Livy 34. 2 (speech of Cato). 

Phorm. 5. 8. 71) " ' Adfectant viam.' Plenum quod nos 
fWeniTiKcos." Affectare viam or iter is mostly peculiar to Plautus 
and Terence. (Plaut. Men. 686; Aul. 575; Ter. Haut. 301; 
Phorm. 964. Affectare iter, Cic. Rose. Am. 48.) I find no 
examples of affectare alone used in the sense of the foregoing. 

I can only explain the last part of the note by supposing that 
the commentator looked upon " affectare viam ad aliquid " as the 
original form whence all the various usages of affectare have been 
derived. In that case " quod nos eWenrriKcos " would be entirely 
correct. 

(#.) napapaiov, nupovopaaia. 

(See especially Wolfttin, " Die allitterierenden Verbindungen 
der lat. Sprache ; Sitz. Ber. d. bayr. Akad. 1881, p. 1. ft". ; " Der 
Reim im Latein," Archiv 1. 350-389.) 

The fondness of the older writers for alliteration, punning and 



IO 

the like is too well known to require any detailed discussion here. 
What remains is to examine the several comments on the subject, 
to see whether they agree with each other or with Donatus. 

In his Ars Gram. (K. 4. 398), Donatus says : " Paronomasia est 
velut quaedam denominatio, ut ; " Nam inceptio est amentium 
non amantium " (And. 1. 3. 13). Evidently he looks upon paro- 
nomasia as the proximity of words that sound alike but have a 
different meaning, briefly, "punning." Parhomoeon, according 
to his definition, is simply alliteration; "cum ab isdem litteris 
diversa verba sumuntur, ut ; " O Tite, tute Tati tibi tanta, tyranne, 
tulisti" (Enn. Mull. 108). 

Charisius (K. 1. 282. 7) holds the same view. Diomedes (K. 1. 
446. 13) includes under paronomasia the " figura etymologia." 
" Paronomasia," he says, " est veluti quaedam denominatio cum 
praecedenti nomini aut verbum aut nomen adnectitur ex eodem 
figuratu, ut, ' fugam fugit,' 'facinora fecit,' etc." And then, " Et 
aliter fit, etc." (repeating Charisius and Donatus). 

This, it may be observed, enlarges the sphere of paranomasia 
to an immense extent. So too (446. 30) napopoiov is extended to 
" verba vel nomina paululum inflexa et tamen prope similia 
superioribus ut" (quoting Verg. A. 4. 13). 

In our commentary great confusion is visible in the use of these 
two words 7rap6[xoLov and Trapovopao-ta, partly owing to a jumbling 
together of the definitions of Donatus and Diomedes, and partly 
to a total misunderstanding of their meaning. For instance: 
And. 1. 3. 13) " ' Nam inceptio est amentium,' etc. Amabant 
veteres de proximo similia dicere ; ut Cicero, ' Minus carum 
putavit fore de armario quam quod de sacrario fuisset ablatum." 

So far the note is correct, though it must be acknowledged that 
we should not be much impressed by such a pun as the one 
quoted. After this follows the remarkable statement of some 
amateur commentator : " Quaedam in verbis sunt quae irapopoia 
dicuntur, in nominibus irapovopavLai." Surely an entirely original 
distinction between the two words. 

Compare And. 1. 5. 7) " ' Id mutavit quoniam me immutatum,' 
Trapopoiov." To which the second commentator of And. 1. 1. 13 
has again added : " Nam quotiens verba sunt irapopoiov dicitur, 
quotiens nomina, izapovopavla." 

A comparison of the authorities above mentioned will show that 
if napopoiov applies to " mutavit — me immutatum," the definition of 
t was taken from Diomedes rather than Donatus. 



II 

Compare : And. 4. 4. 38) " ' Provolvam teque in luto ibidem 
pervolvam.' De proximo napopoiov repetivit." Again the note is 
added: " Et quando nomzna sunt napovopaaia, etc." (Cp. Hec. prol. 
2. 11; 1. 2. 90; 5. 1. 34; And. 5. 5. 8.) 

Adel. 3. 3. 69) " ' Quod queo.' A coquendo sumpsit napopoLov, 
etc. (alluding to Cicero's pun, " Tu qucque ")• Here Donatus 

would have Said napovopaaia, not napnpoiov. 

In Adel. 3. 2. 1) " Omnes omnia." We read : " vneppoXr} cum 
napovopaaia ' omnes omnia.' " Certainly no paronomasia is visible. 
We should rather expect the napopoiov of Diomedes. 

Compare now Adel. 3. 2. 2) " ' Nihil afferant.' Mire de prox- 
imo repetitum est 7rap6poiov y id est, ' conferant ' et ' afferant,' and 
then in contradiction to Adel. 3. 2. 1: "Sic supra; 'omnes 
omnia.' " 

On "omnes omnia" (Adel. 5. 9. 21) the commentator remarks 
with commendable caution : " Antiqua elegantia et figurata." 

Hec. 2. 3. 1 and 3. 5. 25 not only confuse the terms as defined 
by Donatus but also contradict each other. 

Hec. 2. 3. 1) " ' Inique aeque.' Comicum irapopoiov." 

Hec. 3. 5. 25) " ' Iniqua aequa,' napovotiaaiat sunt Terentianae." 

The example tallying best with the Donatus theory of napopoiov 
is noted at Eun. 4. 7. 10) " ' Solus Sannio servat domi.' Haec 
figura napopoiov dicitur." 

Possibly also And. 3. 3. 10) " ' Nuptiae ut fuerant futurae fient.' 
. . . Hoc genus compositionis non vitabant veteres." So much 
for these two figures. The frequent use of them as a mark 
of proverbial and especially of older Latinity s without ques- 
tion. That Donatus so considered them is also evident. But the 
examples cited will show how lamentably the facts of the case 
were obscured by later commentators. 

(c). Ellipsis. 

Although the confusion nearly equals that of the two figures 
just treated, the general question of ellipsis lies more or less out- 
side of the subject in hand. 

For convenience a few exx. have been grouped under the title. 
(See Hahn, 1872, p. 7 ff.) 

Eun. 1. 2. 53) " " Et fidibus scire.' Vetusta 2XX«^w (i. e. of can- 
tare). Cantare, with ' tibiis' or 'fidibus ' as the ablative of instru- 
ment, is to be found, though rarely, in Plautus, Terence, Cicero, 
Ovid and Nepos. 



12 , 

With ellipsis of cantare I find only Cic. Lael. 8. 26 ; De Sen. 8 ; 
Fam. 9. 22. 3. (Schmalz 279. 99; Holtze, 1. 135, etc.) 

Eun. 4. 4. 10) " ' Nostrarum.' ' Apxaia-fios est figura pro nos- 
trarum vel nostrorum, id est, quae familiae nostrae sunt, etc." 

The note makes no sense as it stands. Something has fallen 
out, and a comparison of other notes on the same point suggests 
" nostrum." 

Read then : " ' ' Apxaio-fios est figura, pro nostrum, nostrarum, etc." 

Compare Hec. 2. 1. 19) " ' Vestrorum quisque.' Vestrorum 
pro vestrum. Sic veteres." 

Hec. 2. 1. 43) " i Vestrarum nulla.' Pro vestrum," etc. 

(On nostrorum for nostrum, etc., see Lorenz, Most. 280 ; 
Holtze 1. 350 ; Gell. 20. 6.) 

Adel. 2. 4. 6) " ' Ne id assentandi.' Antiqua eXXeo/as. Deest 
enim ' causa.' " 

This seems entirely correct. 

(Dz. Adel. 270; Holtze 1. 143, where a number of such exx. 
from early Latin are quoted.) 

The same may be said of the anacoluth in Adel. 4. 5. 14) " ' Ut 
opinor, has non nosse.' Potuit recte dicere et hoc : ' ut opinor has 
non nosti,' sed illud vetustius." (Dz. Adel. 648 ; Phorm. 480.) 

Hec. 5. 1. 4) " ' Minus fecisse.' ... an 'minus fecisse' pro 
poenitere ? Sic enim veteres dicebant : ' muto factum ' et ' nolo 
factum ' cum alicuius rei eos poenitebat." 

Compare the two notes on " instat factum " (And. 1. 1. 120). 

It is very likely the commentator is right in saying that " nolo 
factum," etc., is archaic for " poenitere," but he says nothing of 
the evident archaism, the omission of esse, which is frequent in 
early Latin — especially in formal expressions with nolle, velle and 
oportet. (Dz. Adel. 13; Phorm. 165; Holtze 2. 1 f.) 

Adel. 5. 4. 20) " ' Ilium ut vivat optant.' SuAX^i?. Nam sic 
veteres loquebantur. Nos vero dicimus ' illi optant,' non ' ilium.' 

There is no proper syllepsis here as Donatus understood it. 

The subject of the dependent clause is made the object of the 
leading verb. The construction is frequent in comedy. 

(Cf. Eun. 5. 8. 5 ; Phorm. 2. 3. 8 ; Hec. prol. 2. 4.) (Draeger 
2. 498.) 

Hec. 3. 2. 24) " ' Atque eis onera adiuta.' Locutio antiqua 
figurata." Then what seems to be a later addition : " ' Et est 
vnaWayrj pro : ' Ipsos onera portantes eis onera adiuta.' " Hypal- 
lage is not necessary to explain ' eis.' A few cases of adiuto or 



13 

adiuvo with the dative of the person occur in early Latin. Pacuv. 
(Don. Adel. prol. 16) ; Petron. Frag. Trag. 62 (Burm.) ; Gell. 
2. 29 and on a coin of Heraclius A. D. 612 " Deus adiuta 
Romanis." 

(d). Figura elymologica. 

(See Landgraf, " De figuris etymologicis, etc.," Act. Sem. 
Erlang. 2, p. 1-69 ; Schmalz, p. 104, etc.) 

As has already been observed, one at least of the commentators 
follows Diomedes in including the fig. etym. under the head of 
napopoiov. Four notes, however, refer more directly to it : Eun. 
3- 5- 39; 4- 3- 2 ; Adel - 5- 4- 5) and Phorm. prol. 19. 

(^). 'O/jLotorfkevroV, 

(See Wolfnin, " Der Reim im Latein," Archiv 1. 350 ff. ; 
Schmalz, p. 406 ff., etc.) Here, too, the comments neither agree 
with each other nor with the definitions in the Ars Gram. 

For instance: Phorm. 3. 2. 37) "'Nihil ferentem, flentem,' 
ofioioTtfXtvTov usitatum veteribus," is a case which Donatus would 
call ' homoeoptoton,' " cum in similis casus exeunt verba diversa 
ut ' merentes, etc' " " Homoeoteleuton," he continues, " est cum 
simili modo dictiones plurimae finiuntur." (Ars Gram.) 

The more or less vulgar character of the figure was evidently 
recognized in the note to Eun. 2. 2. 5) " ' Pannis annisque 
obsitum.' Vel parasitica vernilitate icad' ofioioTeK^vrov dictum, 
etc." (cp. note to Eun. 1. 2. 75). Plautus makes a very large use 
of the figure ; Terence, as might be expected, is more sparing. 
(Donat. Phorm. 3. 3. 43; Serv. Eel. 3. 1 ; G. 3. 539; A. 11. 112.) 

After this time the usage does not appear to any extent in 
literature until the archaists of the second century. 

(/). Irony. 

Under this head two comments are to be noticed : 
Adel. 2. 1. 22) " ' Ex tuis virtutibus.' Sic veteres per tlpavelav 
1 virtutes ' pro ' flagitiis ' dicebant." I can see no actual archaism 
here. If the use of ' virtutes ' for ' flagitia ' or any other form of 
irony is less frequent in the later writers, it is rather owing to the 
natur j of their subjects. That the figure should have ever died 
out among the people is of course out of the question. It may 
have appeared archaic to the commentator because he saw more 
of it in the older authors, i. e. the orators and dramatists. 



14 

The comment on Eun. i. 2. 9) " ' Sane quia vero.' Nam 
' vero ' semper ironiae convenit ut Virgilius (A. 4. 93) " is evi- 
dently a short registration of something resembling the Bemb. 
schol. 1st hand to the same passage (Hermes 2. 355) " Vero 
modo per ironiam dixit. Nam maiores nostri ubi ponebant 
1 vero ' semper ironiam significabant ut Vergilius (A. 4. 93)." 

The connection between the two notes is evident even to the 
Vergil quotation, though the words " maiores nostri," so often 
occurring in the scholia, are never used in Donatus. Vero is 
often used ironically (examples abound : Ter. And. 854, etc.), but 
of course it cannot be said that the old writers always use it so. 

2. Position. 

Here I include two notes on ' enim ' and ' nam.' 

Adel. 2. 1. 14) " Enim inceptiva particula apud veteres fuit, sed 
et convenit perturbationi." 

This is confined to the comic writers (exx. frequent : Plaut. 
Pers. 236 ; Capt. 592 ; Ter. Haut. 72, etc.) (See Lorenz, Miles 
429 ; Brix, Trin. 705.) 

Hec. 1. 2. 100) " Nam hie inceptiva particula est ut Plautus 
(Miles 145)." When Servius (G. 4. 445), probably after Donatus, 
says : " Nam hodie postponitur " he refers to a usage only poetic 
and perhaps not ante-Augustan. (Lachm. Lucret., p. 246.) 

3. Construction according to Sense. 

Eun, 4. 3. 7) " ' Absente nobis.' Aut subdistinguendum est et 
subaudiendum me aut apxa'io-fxos figura est ' absente nobis ' pro 
1 nobis absentibus.' (Evidently a summary of conflicting views.) 
Then follows a passage from Pomponius, ' praesente amicis,' and 
one from Varro, 4 praesente legatis,' and finally, perhaps the view 
of Donatus himself, "Cum sic dicit pro praepositione ponit 'ab- 
sente ' ac si diceret ' coram amicis.' " 

This usage is ante-classic and probably originates in a con- 
struct, ad sens. In familiar speech the words were looked upon 
as adverbs (Plaut. Bacch. 142. Nonius, pp. 76 and 154, quotes 
three other exx.) (See Holtze, 2. 196 ; 1. 352 ; Schmalz, 254 B.) 

Adel. 4. 4. 25) " ' Aperite — aliquis.' Vim pluralem habet ali- 
quis quamvis singulariter dicatur. Non est enim 'aliquis' nisi de 
multis. Recte ergo ' aper. al.' et nove." Then a second note ; 
" Nam veteribus non placet illud ubi duae distinctiones sunt . . . 
ut assumatur ' aperiat.' Proprie enim veteres et ' quis ' et * ali- 



15 

quis' et ' quisquam' non observabant quo genereaut quo numero 
declinarent. Est ergo figura apxaicrpos" 

The question of gender will be considered later. The use of 
these pronouns as above noted is conversational, and is chiefly 
found in Plautus and Terence. Vergil once (A. 4. 625). (See 
Brix, Men. 674; Lor. Pseud. 1272.) 

4. Attraction. 

Eun. 4. 3. n) "' Eunuchum quern dedisti, etc.' Aut antiptosis 
est casus pro casu ut : ' urbem quam statuo vestra est' (A. 1. 
573) aut ' quern ' cum interrogatione pronuntiandum ut sit 
'qualem.'" (Evidently a summary of conflicting views.) Another 
note follows, giving the correct explanation, that is, the first of 
the alternatives just proposed. " Ouidam volunt," he says, 
11 'quern ' distinguere, quasi dicat 'qualem' sed nesciunt hac figura 
multum veteres usos esse, etc." 

(Comp. Servius A. 1. 573, drawn perhaps from Donat. Phorm. 
5- 8. 53.) Ladewig says (A. 1. 573) this construction is rare and 
occurs only in the poets. Compare, however, Cato in Leg. Voc. 
(I. frag. 2). (See Holtze 1. 387 f. ; Schm. 394.) 

5. Old Formulae. 

Phorm. 1. 2. 81) " ' Quod erit mihi bonum, etc' Sic enim 
veteres : ' quod faustum felixque sit ' dicebant aliquid aggressuri." 

Compare with Cic. Div. 1. 45. 102: " Quae maiores nostri quia 
valere censebant idcirco omnibus rebus agendis ' Quod bonum, 
faustum, felix fortunatumque esset ' praefabantur." (Plaut. Trin. 
41 ; Ter. And. 956 ; Cic. T. D. 1. 45. 118; Flacc. 41. 103 ; Ovid, 
Fast. 1. 63.) 

Eun. 3. 3. 9) " ' Dolo malo.' Quod autem addidit ' malo ' aut 
(1) dpxa'ia-pc? est quia sic in XII tabulis a veteribus scriptum est 
aut (2) e-rrlOeTov doli perpetuum aut (3) diastole est quia est et 
bonus quo a medentibus falli aegros non tamen decipi Lucretius 
poeta testatur (4. 11)." (Again a summary of conflicting views.) 

With explanation (3) above quoted compare Paul, ex Fest. 69. 
10 (M.): " Doli vocabulum nunc tantum in malis utimur, apud 
antiquos etiam in bonis rebus utebatur. Unde adhuc dicimus 
' Sim sine dolo malo.' Nimirum quia solebat dici et bonus." 

Dolus is quoted as originally having a good meaning— appa- 
rently on the authority of such passages as the one just given. 
I find no examples of it in that sense. The fact that it was often 



i6 

used with ' malo ' is no proof that it was originally used in a good 
meaning and therefore needed the adjective to define it. Such 
pleonastic expressions are common in the familiar speech of all 
nations. 

In the elder tongue • dolo malo ' is frequent ; in the conserva- 
tive language of the law it existed at all times. Examples are 
frequent. 

Far more common and classic, though rare in Cicero, owing 
perhaps to his legal training, is ' dolo ' alone. 

Donatus once uses "dolum malum" himself (Eun. 4. 5. 1), 
twice " sine dolo," both as explanations of " sedulo." (Adel. 2. 
2. 43 ; Phorm. 2. 3. 81.) 

II. — Of Single Words, etc. 

1. Words Obsolete or Rare. 

Nouns, 

And. 3. 2. 10) In explaining ' puerpera,' Donatus adds : " Et 
apud veteres * puer, puellus, puera, puella.' " 

Comp. Suet. Cal. 8 : " Quod antiqui ' puellas, pueras ' dicti- 
tarent" 

Liv. Andron. (Prise. 697 P.) ; Varro (Non. 156. 14 and 17). 

Puellus: Lucil. (Non. 158. 18) ; Enn. (id. ib.) ; Varro (id. ib.) ; 
Lucret. 4. 1252 ; Ap. Met. 7. 197. io, etc. 

Eun. 4. 3. 13) Donatus says the ancients called heavy wine 
' temetum,' " eo quod teiitaret mentem, etc." 

Gell. 10. 23. 1 : " vino quod ' temetum ' prisca lingua appella- 
batur." 

Plaut. Aul. 355 ; Cato (Pliny 14. 13 ; 14. 90) ; once in Cic. Rep. 
4. 6. 6 ; Hor. Ep. 2. 2. 163 ; Iuv. 15. 25. 

Adel. 4. 2. 39) In explaining ' angiportus ' the commentator 
says: " Nam domos vel portus vel insulas veteres dixerunt." 

Comp. Fest. 233 M., " Portum in* XII pro domo positum 
omnes fere consentiunt." Once as " warehouse " (Dig. 50. 16. 
59 ; cp. Cassiod. Var. 1, 25). 

Insula means a tenement, as opposed to domus, the home of a 
rich family. Cic. Off. 3. 16. 66, and so on up to the second cen- 
tury. In ecclesiastical Latin " insula " is used for a temple. 

Pronouns. 
And. 3. 3. 48) "'Eccum video.' ' Eccum ' quasi ecce eum ; 
veteres dixerunt ' eccum eccuius (?), ellum,' quod apertius significat 



17 

' ecce ilium ' et obscurius ' ilium.' " Comparison with other com- 
ments shows that the words " ellum quod apertius — ilium " are 
a reference to the two conflicting views on the derivation of 
' ellum.' " More plainly/' he says, " ellum stands for ecce ilium " 
(en ilium ? Cp. And. 5. 2. 14). " The theory that ellum is a pro- 
noun — another form of ' ilium ' — is more obscure." 

And. 5. 2. 14) Conflicting views are again registered. " Veteres 
quod nos c ilium ' dicimus vel ' ellum ' vel ' ollum ' dicebant " (the 
pronominal theory) — " quamvis 'ellum' quidam 'ecce ilium' 
velint intellegi . . . dicens ' ellum ' quasi ' en ilium ' " (the theory 
of Donatus, if we may trust Ars Gram. (K. 380. 31 and Serv. K. 
548. 6). 

In what follows, another compiler quotes both views again, 
finally giving his verdict in favor of Donatus. In Andria 3. 3. 48 
Donatus is repeated. In Adel. 2. 3. 7 both are again registered, 
with an indication that the pronominal theory is preferred. 

(On ecce enim, etc., see Harvard Studies 1. 192 ff. ; Speng. And. 
580 (2d ed.) ; Dz. Adel. 361 ; Lor. Miles 1310; Brix, Capt. 1005, 
etc.) 

And. 5. 4. 29) " ' Cuiam igitur.' Vetuste ' cuiam ' quod omnibus 
generibus et casibus servit." 

Cp. Schol. Haut. prol. 8 (Herm. 2. 363) and Serv. Eel. 3. 1. 

Cuius, -a, -um is common in Plautus and Terence. It disap- 
pears in the later writers, but must have always been in the popular 
speech. Comp. Span. ' cuyo, cuya.' (See esp. Speng. And. 763.) 

Verbs. 

And. 3. 3. 12) Don. justly says " ' temno ' veteres dicebant sine 
praepositione." "The use of the simple for the more usual com- 
pound is an element in the art of the Latin poet" (Schm.382. 3b). 
Hec. 3. 4. 10) " ' Aufugerim.' Sic veteres quod nos ' fugerim.' " 
Aufugio is very rare but classic. Not used by Catullus, 
Lucretius, Vergil, Tibullus, Horace, Ovid or Sallust. Twice in 
Cicero's Orations Verr. 1. 35 and 5. 79. Once in Tacitus (H. 2. 8). 
Propert. 1. 9. 30; Livy 1. 25. 8 (story of the Trigemini). 

Adverbs. 

And. 2. 1. 35) " ' Ne mihi detur.' Veteres frequenter ' ne ' pro 
'non' dicebant." Compare And. 4. 4. 45 ; Eun. 2. 3. 36; 3. 3. 2 ; 
3. 1.49; Phorm. 1. 3. 5. 

In the time of Plautus, ne the original negative and non the 



i8 

derivative were used indifferently for simple negation, as is 
shown by f ne vis ' and ' ne vult ' beside ' non vis ' and ' non vult,' 
' nescio ' and ' non scio.' The separated ' non velim,' etc. (Most. 
681) are common along with the compounds of the same. 

In Terence only the compounds are used. (Draeger i. 133 ; 
Holtze 2. 321 ; Brix, Trin. 1156, etc.) 

The ' utinam ne ' of Phorm. 1. 3. 5 is not a ' vetus elocutio,' so 
far as I can discover. Utinam ne and non are equally classic. 
Cic.-Att. 11. 9. 3 uses both forms. 

In some of the preceding comments on ne for non, apropos of 
nimirum and quidni, Donatus also speaks of the use of ni for ne, 
i. e. simple negation (Eun. 3. 3. 2 ; 2. 3. 6 ; cp. 4. 4. 7, and Serv. 
A. 3. 686). 

Ni as an absolute negative remains only in the two words 
Donatus mentions. (See Holtze 2. 377.) 

Phorm. 1. 1. 9) " ' Unciatim.' Sic veteres multa," referring 
probably to the adverbs in >tim used in great numbers by ante- 
and post-classic writers. (See Draeger 1. 117, par. 65.) 

Eun. 1. 3. 25) " ' Qui vir sies.' In veteribus invenitur." What 
is found in the old writers? The words must represent a much 
longer comment. At least three things occur in the passage 
quoted of which Donatus might have said " In veteribus in- 
venitur." The prolepsis of te (" te ostenderes qui vir sies"), 
which, as was shown under the head of " attraction," Donatus 
considers an archaism. Or he may have taken qui as the old- 
fashioned representative of ut. (Compare notes to And. 3. 2. 21 ; 
2. 1. 17 ; 2. 1. 34 ; Hec. 2. 3. 6 ; 3. I. 54 ; 4. 1. 38 ; Eun. 5. 3. 2 ; 
Phorm. 1. 2. 80; 2. 3. 34; 2. 3. 49; Adel. 5. 3. 14.) Or thirdly 
and more likely, the note may refer to the archaic use of qui for 
quis. (Holtze 1. 392 ; Brix, Trin. 439.) 

2. Words, the Meaning of which has Changed, etc. 

Nouns. 

And. 1. 5. 16) " ' Oratio me miseram.' Etiam pauca verba 
veteres ' orationem dicebant.' " 

This note seems to have been suggested by the passage quoted. 
Compare, however, Charisius (K. 1. 152. 10) ; Cic. T. D. 5. 16. 47. 

And. 2. 5. 15) " ' Verum illud verbum est.' Id est, proverbium 
et sententia. Et sic veteres 'verbum' pro sententia." Compare 
notes on Eun. 1. 2. 95 ; 1. 2. 98 ; 4. 5. 6; Adel. 5. 8. 29. 



19 

This usage, as Donatus says, belongs chiefly to the ante-classic 
period. Plaut. True. 885, 931; Aul. 547 and often; Sal. lug. 
11. 7. (Spengel, And. 240, 2d edit.) 

And. 2. 6. 2) " ' Gratia.' Gratia pro causa veteres ponebant." 

Compare notes on Adel. 4. 2. 25 and And. 3. 4. 8. 

A well-known archaism. Cp. Plaut. Bacch. 97; Pseud. 1277; 
Ter. Hec. 617 ; Eun. 99, 159 ; Sal. lug. 54. 4; 80. 4. (See Holtze 

2. 53; 1, 143.) 

Adel. prol. 1. 1) " ' Scripturam suam.' Indifferenter omnis qui 
aliquid scripsisset, scriptor a veteribus dicebatur." 

He means that scriptor was used for comicus, epicus, historicus, 
etc. 

Adel. 2. 1. 29) " ' O hominem impurum.' Sic veteres ' impu- 
rum ' generaliter pro ' improbo ' ponebant ut in eadem hac 
fabula (3. 3. 6)." 

Compare Schol. Bemb. on Adel. 2. 1. 29 (Hermes 2. 383). 

PJaut. Rud. 652; Ter. Eun. 235; Haut. 629; Cic. Cat. 2. 10. 
23, and often. (Dziatzko, Adel. 183.) 

Adel. 4. 5. 16) " ' Virgo.' Virginem autem apxaTo-fiv pro muliere 
dixit." Cp. note on Adel. 4. 7. 13, where he quotes Verg. E. 6. 47. 

The usage is largely poetical. Ovid H. 6. 403; Hor. C. 2. 8. 
23, etc. 

Attention might be called, in passing, to a similar use of 
" maid " in old English, " pucelle " in French, etc. 

Adel. 5. 8. 20) " ' Age prolixe.' Aut ' Age prolixe,' id est, 
1 Age benigne,' ut sit ' prolixe ' benigne secundum veteres, aut etc." 

The alternative proposed is that prolixe is a noun in the voca- 
tive (so Klotz). Later editors properly take prolixe as an adverb. 

In the sense of " courteous" prolixus is Ciceronian. Fam. 

3. 8. 8; Att. 6. 3.5; 16. 16.4. 

Phorm. 2. 1. 57) " ' Columen.' Columen culmen an columen 
columna? Unde columellae apud veteres dicti servi maiores 
doinus" (quoting Lucilius, Baehr. 412, and Tubero). Horatius 
contra, pro columine ' columnam ' (C. 1. 35. 13 — the only ex.), 
Ennius (Baehr. 232). Columen is often used thus, but the fore- 
going are the only exx. I have found of columella and columna 
used in this tropic sense. 

Phorm. 2. 1. 83) " ■ Amicos advocabo.' Amicos et pro testibus 
et pro advocatis veteres posuerunt." A similar use in Greek is 
well known. This note may have been suggested by the passage. 
Cp. Cic. Caec. 8. 22 ; Hor. C. 2. 18. 12 ; Iuv. 3. 57, etc. 



20 

Adjectives. 

Adel. 4. 5. 39) "'Tarn grandem.' 'Grandem' ad aetatem 
veteres rettulerunt non ad corpus. Et in parte aetatis dicitur 
grandis non in tota vita nisi si addatur natu, ut : ' grandis natu 
parens adductus ad supplicium,' etc." 

Cp. note on Phorm. 2. 3. 15, apparently a short summary of the 
preceding. To say that the ancients used grandis only of age, 
and not of size, is, of course, going too far. Grandis alone (of a 
growing person) is evidently used both of age and size. Lucret. 
2. 1 164 ; Cic. Pis. 36. 87, etc. 

Eun. 1, 2. 52) " Facie honesta." Schol. Bemb. 1st hand 
(Hermes 2. 356) " Honestam dicit pulcram. Nam maiores nostri 
' honestum ' dicebant pulcrum. Nam paulo post dicturus . . . 
1 inhonestum ' (Eun. 2. 3. 65) id est, deformem. Cp. Schol. 
Bemb. 2d hand (Hermes 2. 356) on Eun. 2. 1. 24 and 3. 2. 21 ; 
also Donatus on Eun. 2. 3. 65: " * Inhonestam,' foedam, ut 
contra — ' facie honesta ' (Eun. 1. 2. 52) ut apud Verg. (A. 1. 595)." 

Compare also Donatus on Eun. 2. 1. 24; 3. 2. 21 ; And. 1. 1. 
96. The Schol. Bemb. on Eun. 1. 2. 52 is important, because it 
is doubtless much nearer the original words of Donatus than the 
short notices at Eun. 2. 1. 24 ; 2. 3. 65, and 3. 2. 21. Honestus of 
personal appearance is mostly poetic. Exx. are frequent. 

Verbs. 

Hec. prol. 35) " ' Adiutans.' Sic veteres dicere maluerunt 
quam ' adiuvans.' " The Schol. Bemb. on same passage is almost 
identical. 

In Adel. prol. 16 the text now stands " adiutare" (cp. Donat.). 

In Phorm. 3. 3. 4, on the contrary, "adiuverit" (cp. Donat.). 

In Terence the usage is about evenly balanced. Plaut. Pseud. 
83 Lorenz reads " adiuvas." 

Phorm. prol. 2) " ' Transdere.' ' Transdere ' veteres sonantius, 
quod nos lenius dicimus ' tradere ' ut ' tralatum ' nos ' translatum ' 
e contrario." 

Compare Schol. Bemb. (H. 2. 377) on the same passage. 

1 Transdo ' is most frequent in Caesar, B. C. 1. 68 ; 1. 76, etc. 

Tradere occurs often in Plautus, as in the later writers. (Neue 
2. 734 ff.) 

Eun. prol. 44) " 'Animadvertite.' Nos eWenrriKGo? dicimus 
' advertite ' quod veteres plene * animum advertite.' " Evidently 



21 

' animadvertite ' at the head of this comment should read ' animum 
advertite.' The context shows that Donatus so read it. The 
text, however, is the Terentian "animum attendite." 

(Cp. Donat. And. prol. 8, where Dziatzko reads " attendite " — 
Spengel " advortite," after Fleckeisen and the older editors.) 

The MSS. vary so much between animadverto and animum 
adverto that it is difficult to make trustworthy statistics. The full 
form is so frequent in the earlier literature that all the Terentian 
exx. of animadverto have been altered to animum adverto by the 
later editors. 

Animum adverto, if we may trust the MSS., occurs more or 
less frequently throughout the literature, but with the ace. and 
infin. it is mostly ante-classic, occurring in Cic. Caes. and Sal. as 
an archaism. 

Adverto (for animadverto) occurs perhaps once in Cicero 
(Fam. i. i) ; Verg. A. 4. 115 — more frequently in the historians, 
especially Tacitus and Pliny. 

Statistics for Adel. Phorm. and Hec. show that Donatus himself 
uses animadverto 13 times, adverto 4 times (one spurious — Klotz 
2. 406. 25), and animum intendo once (Kl. 2. 390. 22). 

And. 4. 4. 11) " ' Miror unde sit.' ■ Miror ' veteres cum f unde ' 
pro ' nescio ' ponebant." Then what seems an explanation by a 
later commentator : " Nam admiratio ab ignorantia descendit." 

Cp. note on Eun. 2. 2. 59. 

Exx. of this usage, so far as I can find them, end with Caesar. 
Plaut. Stich. 541 ; Cic. N. D. 1. 34. 95 ; Caes. B. G. 1. 32, etc. 

And. 2. 1. 35) "'Sat habeo.' Sic antiqui pro 'sufficit' 'satis 
habeo ' dicebant. . . ." 

Frequent in everyday speech. 

Plaut. Most. 654 ; Amph. 509, and often. (Brix, Capt. 446 ; 
Speng. And. 335.) 

Adel. 1. 2. 7) " ' Designavit.' . . . Hac verbum apud veteres 
duas res signincabat ; etenim prave et recte facta ' designata ' 
dicebantur." 

' Dissignata ' is now read. Compare Plaut. Most. 413 and Hor. 
Ep. 1. 5. 16. 

And. 3. 2. 28) " ' Renuntio.' ' Re- ' syllaba apud veteres inter- 
dum abundat ut modo ' renuntio ' pro nuntio . . ." 

Compare Donat. And. 5. 1. 8, " • Remittas ' pro mittas." 
(Rare — not in Cic. or Caesar — Sail. lug. 52. 5 ; Hor. C. 2. 11. 3.) 
Compare also Donat. Adel. 1. 2. 41, " ' Resarcietur ' ; Re abundat." 



22 

(Rare — not in Cicero; Col. n. 2. 38; Livy 45. 28. Sarcio is 
common.) 

Renuntio for nuntio is mostly ante-classic. Ter. Haut. 4. 8. 18 
and often ; Plaut. Pseud. 420, etc. 

The use of compound for simple verbs belongs to the sermo 
vulgaris. The practice was discontinued by the writers of the 
Golden Age, but again appears with the decline of literature. 
(Schmalz 383, par. 39.) 

Adel. 1. 1. 23) " ' Eduxi e parvulo.' Quod nos ' educare ' 
dicimus ' educere ' veteres dicebant, ut : (Verg. A. 6. 765)." 

Varro's distinction (Non. 447. 33), " Educit obstetrix, educat 
nutrix, etc.," is not always strictly observed (see Krebs 395). 

Adel. 4. 2. 20) " ' Usque occidit.' ' Occidit ' pro vehementer 
cecidit. Nam ' occidere ' et ' praeoccidere ' (some edd. ' perocci- 
dere ') ad caedem referebantur apud veteres." For ' praeoccidere ' 
read ' praecidere ' (so Georges). 

Occido in this, its original sense, is very rare. 

Varro, R. R. 1. 31. 1 ; Vulg. Apoc. 13. 3. 

Phorm. 1. 2. 91) " ' Nunc amitte.' Hunc quod nos dicimus 
1 dimitte ' antiqui etiam dicebant 'amitte,' etc." Amitto, for the 
classic dimitto, to send away, is frequent in Plautus and Terence. 
(See lexicons for exx.) 

Adverbs, etc. 

At And. 4. 3. 5 Donatus says: " Veteres dicebant ' facile' pro 
' certo,' ut Cicero : ' Illius civitatis facile princeps.' " 

Facile in this sense seems mostly Ciceronian ; I find few exx. 
elsewhere. 

Plaut. Epid. 504; Trin. 706; Cic. T. D. 1. 3. 81; Rose. Am. 
6. 15, and often. 

Eun. 5. 8. 34) " c Nihil est quid dicas.' ' Nihil ' pro ' non,' ut 
sit : ' non est quod dicas mihi,' id est : nihil est quod dicas, pro ut 
dicas mihi, ut sit ' quod ' pro ' ut,' quod pro quid dicas mihi. 
Certum est autem veteres sic locutos esse." 

Evidently an attempted explanation of the archaism. Compare 
notes on Eun. 5. 2. 45 ; 2. 2. 42 ; 4. 5. 9; Adel. 2. 1. 13; Phorm. 

1. 2. 90. On " Nullus pro non," notes to Eun. 2. 1. 10; Hec. 1. 

2. 4. " Nunquam pro non," Eun. 5. 8. 62; Adel. 3. 1. 16; 4. 1. 
12; Phorm. 1. 2. 71. 

These usages are all conversational and belong especially to 
the comic dramatists. Exx. are numerous. 

(See Holtze 2. 202; Brix, Men. 1012 ■ Capt. 989.) 



2 3 

Of illiberaliter in the sense of " ignobly," which Don. terms an 
archaism (Phorm. 2. 3. 24), I find one other ex. in Terence (Adel. 
664) and three in Cicero (Rep. 1. 22 ; Att. 16. 3. 2 ; 4. 2. 5). 

Eun. prol. 9 in commenting on " nunc nuper " Don. says the old 
writers used some qualifying word with nuper to avoid ambiguity. 
This belongs to the common speech and is ante- and post-classic. 
Plaut. True. 397 R. ; Ap. M. 9. 16, etc. 

On the use of adhuc noted by Don. at And. 3. 2. 1 see Hand. 
Turs. 1. 156 ff. 

Hec. 1. 2. 7 appears the curious note : " ' Salve mecastor.' 
Olim salutantes addebant iusiurandum ut hoc sedulo facere 
viderentur, ' Immo salve' Plaut. Trin. 1153." 

The truth of this statement seems supported by the comedy, 
but for the later writers we shall have to take his word for it. 

3. Changes in Form, etc. 

Nouns. 

Adel. 5. 3. 55) " ' Cum primo lucu.' *Apxaiop6s. Nam ' cum 
primo lucu'veteres dicebant 'lucum' pro ' luce,' etc." Then a 
second note, evidently an inference from the first: " Veteres 
masculino genere dicebant lucem." Cp. Donatus, A. G. (K. 1. 
402. 2). 

The Schol. Bemb. (H. 2. 400) preserves the genuine reading 
'luci,' but explains it as a genitive. 

With lucu, however, compare such forms as noctu, diu, interdiu. 
(See Dziatzko, Adel. 841 ; Usener, Jahrbiicher (1878), p. 76 ff. 
Bell, De Loc. usu.) 

And. 2. 2. 28) " ' Nihil ornati.' 'Ap^aicr/ios-. Sic Sallustius : ' ergo 
senati, etc' " 

Compare note on Eun. 2. 2. 6 ; " Et ' ornati ' ut ' senati ' 
antiquus genetivus." The Schol. Bemb. 2d hand (H. 2. 348) on 
the same passage is much fuller. Its connection with Don. And. 
2. 2. 28 is shown by the fact that " nihil ornati, etc.," is quoted, 
also the same passage from Sallust, " ergo senati, etc." 
. Compare with the foregoing Don. Eun. 4. 7. 45; Hec. 3. 2. 21 ; 
Phorm. 1. 3. 2 ; and Schol. Bemb. Adel. 5. 4. 16 (H. 2. 400). 

The system of cross references and quotations especially 
noticeable here seems to be one indication of the manner in which 
the commentary of Donatus has assumed its present proportions. 

At some point, perhaps And. 2. 2. 28, Don. may have treated 



24 

this antique genitive in full, giving appropriate quotations and 
references to various apposite passages in Terence. Succeeding 
commentators recorded a brief statement of this note at the pas- 
sages indicated, using his quotations as illustrations. With the 
foregoing compare: Probus (K. 4. 213. 14); Serg. in Donat. 
(K. 4. 515. 30) ; Charis. (K. 1. 22. 18). 

For Terence see Engelbrecht, " Studia Terentiana," who follows 
Ritschl in claiming the i form to be the only one in Plautus and 
Terence. 

For Cicero see Neue i 2 353, and for the subject in general: 
Ritschl 4. 169; Speng. And. 365; Dz. Adel. 870 ; Brix, Trin. 250. 

And. 3. 5. 2 Don. mentions as an old usage the forms nulli, 
nullae for nullius, and nullo nullae for nulli. Comp. note on Eun. 
5. 6. 3 ; Charis. (K. 1. in. 7; 159. 10), and Schol. Bemb. Haut. 
2. 3. 30 (H. 2. 368). 

For Terence see Engelbrecht. For Plautus, Ritschl 2. 692 ; 
Brix and Lor. Mil. 356, and for special treatment of all these 
forms Luchs in Studemund's Studien. 

" Terence never uses the fern, in -ius or i. In the masculine his 
usage varies, inclining, however, to the older form." (Engelbrecht.) 

Phorm. 4. 3. 5 D. comments on the old forms volup and facul. 
Cp. Diomed (K. 1. 452. 26) and Paul, ex Fest. (87 m.) 

Terence uses volup only in the single phrase volup est (Ph. 610; 
Hec. 857), but in Plautus volup occurs thrice with other words, 
twelve times with est. No traces of the original volupe remain. 
Facul does not occur in either Ter. or Plaut. One ex. from 
Lucil., Pacuv., Afran. and Attius is quoted by Nonius in. 19 ff. 
(See Engelbrecht, Stud. T. ; Brix, Mil. 277.) 

Phorm. 4. 3. 6 " Compluria " is noted as an old form. Com- 
pare Charis. (K. 1. 73. 15 ; 125. 3). 

Gellius, 5. 21. 6, devotes a chapter to the form "compluria," 
citing, for the form " pluria," Cato, Val. Antias, Caelius, Nigidius 
and Varro. 

' Hoc plure,' mentioned by Don., is a fiction of the grammarians 
to account for ' pluria.' The oldest quoted form of the nom. is 
' pious ' (3 times in S. C. de Bacch.) (Engelbr. p. 31 ; Neue 2. 
142 ; Dz. Phorm. Einl. 33. 2.) 

Pronouns, 

And. 4. 1. 32) " ' Hae nuptiae.' Legitur et 'haec nuptiae" 
(so the editors), " Sic enim veteres dixerunt." 



25 

Cp. Don. Phorm. 2. 1. 60 ; Eun. 3. 5. 34 ; and 2. 2. 38 : 
" • Hisce.' Pro hi, vetuste." After these words follows a refer- 
ence to Vergil (E. 3. 102), "His certe, etc.," evidently added by 
a later commentator (see Hagen, Jahrb. 14. 472). 

Schmidt, Hermes 8. 478, shows that Ter. uses haec before 
vowels and h, hae before consonants. (Cp., however, Dz. Einl. 
Phorm. p. 40.) 

Plautus never uses anything but haec. (See Brix, Trin. 877 ; 
Lor. Most. 923.) Haec occurs now and then in Cicero, Vergil, 
Livy, etc. (See also Studemund, Jahrb. 113 (1876); Engelbr. p. 
33 ; Speng. And. 328.) 

Verbs. 

And. 1. 2. 17) " ' Sivi.' Sivi antique . . . aliter in Adel. (104)." 

Cp. Diomed. (K. 1. 374. 13), who says sii is the better form ; 
sivi, old-fashioned. Plautus uses only sivi and the contracted 
sivim, etc. ; sisti for sivisti (Miles 1072). 

An old perfect sini, sinisset is quoted by Diomedes, but the pre- 
ceding note has no reference to such a form as s;ni. Evidently 
the distinction drawn is between sii and sivi. (See Speng. And. 
188.) 

Hec. 4. 1. 57 Don. calls attention to the old passive form " quita 
est" (Cp. Diomed. K. 1. 3S5. 17), and at And. 2. 6. 12 to the 
forms licitum, placitum, puditum. (Cp. Diomed. K. 1. 398. 9.) 

And. 41 1. 29 : " ' Altercasti,' " he says : " Legitur et ' altercatus 
es.' Non enim ' alterco ' dicimus." 

Terence uses alterco only in this passage (cp. Pacuv. R. 210). 

In the use of active verbs, afterwards deponent, Engelbr. p. 50, 
shows that Terence varies but slightly from the practice of the 
Golden Age. The case is quite different in Plautus (Brix, Mil. 
172). 

Adel. 1. 1. 2) " ' lerant.' Producte i pronuntiando quod nos 
addita v, ' iverant ' dicimus. Tale est illud Vergilii : ' Nos abiisse 
rati, etc. (A. 2. 25)." " Tale est ff. " is evidently the addition of 
a later hand. The note " Producte, etc.," refers to such old 
transitional forms as ' lerant, fui,' etc., standing between the full 
' iverant,' ' fuvi,' and the regular classic lerant and fiii. The 
writer of " Tale, etc.," shows by his quotation that he understood 
the words preceding to refer only to the regular classic lerant for 
iverant. 

On such transition forms see Dz. Adel. 27. They occur gen- 



26 

erally at the end of the verse or before interpunction. (Conradt, 
Herm. 10. 105 ff.) The same may be said of most of the old or 
vulgar forms used by Terence. The transition from the uncon- 
tracted to the regular contracted forms is shown by the variation 
in treatment. ' Audieras,' Phorm. 573; ' audierit,' Hec. 813, etc. 

Adel. 3. 4. 36 Don. notices " abduce " for the classical abduc. 

Cp. Schol. Bemb. (H. 2. 390), and also on " traduce," Adel. 5. 
7. 12 (p. 402). Chans. (K. 1. 256. 18; 349. 25). 

Besides die, due, fac and fer, Ter. uses "face," but only at the 
end of the verse (Engelbr). " Duce " he uses only when com- 
pounded (Dz. Adel. 482). 

Plautus always uses the full form regardless of its position in 
the verse. (Ritschl, 2. 545 ; Brix, Capt. 356 ; Lor. Most. 830.) 

Adverbs, etc, 

Adel. 2. 3. 11) " ' Nil pote supra.' ... 'pote' pro potis et 
mage pro magis dpxaio>io3." 

Terence uses potis before forms of esse beginning with a vowel, 
pote before consonants, always with a verb (Engelbr. p. 26). In 
Plautus, on the contrary, potis occurs nearly 600 times by itself 
(Lor. Ps. 877 ; Brix, Trin. 352, etc.). For Catullus, Cicero, etc., 
see Neue 2. 98. Mage is frequent in Plautus but does not occur 
in Terence. 

Lucret. 4. 81, etc., Servius, A. 10. 48 quotes an example from 
Cicero's Frumentaria. 

Phorm. 1. 1. 2 the note states that the old writers used indiffer- 
ently either here or heri, inane or mani, vespere or vesperi. 

For here and heri cp. Quin. 1. 7. 22 ; Charis. (K. 1. 200. 11) ; 
Holtze 1. 106. Here occurs a few times in Plautus, once in 
Cicero (Att. 10. 13. 1), and after the Augustan Age is perhaps 
most frequent. Mane is the form for classic prose, but occurs also 
in the early writers. (Lor. Most. 534 ; Pseud. 375.) 

4. Gender. 

Eun. 2. 3. 18 Don. says that penus was used by the old writers 
in every gender. Cp. Gell. 4. 1. 2 ; Charis. K. 174. 28 and Lor. 
Pseud. 587, ace. to whom penus varied at all periods both in form 
and gender. 

* Eun. 2. 3. 82) " f Illarum quisquam.' Quisquam multis exem- 
plis probatur etiam feminino genere veteres protulisse ita ut in 
numeris haec pronomina infinita sunt." 









27 

The Schol. Bemb. ist hand, Eun. 4. 4. 11 (H. 2. 361), has a 
long note on quisquam as a feminine form. The Don. comment 
on the same passage seems only a brief statement of it. 

All he says is : " Antiqua locutio est." Compare Schol. Bemb. 
Adel. 3. 2. 23 (H. 2. 385). In Hec. 2. 1. 19, Don. reads " vestro- 
rum." The text is " vestrarum." Quis, quisquam, quisque, quis- 
nam, as feminine forms, are ante-classic. No exx. of fern, aliquis 
and ecquis are to be quoted. 

Quis as feminine is more frequent in the old drama than quae. 
It was originally universal, but as early as Plautus quae was well 
established and soon afterwards became the only form. (See 
Brix, Mil. 362.) 

5. Syntax. 
Nouns. 

Eun. 4. 4. 4) " ' Quid vestis mutatio.' Sic veteres " (quoting 
an example from Plautus and Caecilius). 

Verbal substantives in -io having a position between the infin. 
and the noun were a special characteristic of conversation. The 
enormous use of them by Donatus himself is at once apparent. 
(Brix, Trin. 709 ; Most. 377 ; Lor. Most. 6.) 

Hec. prol. 1. 1) " ' Hecyra est huic nomen.' Nominativo casu 
figuravit quom in usu sit ut dativo dicamus ; quamvis praesto sint 
exempla quibus veteres per omnes fere casus hoc genus locutionis 
enuntiabant." On the variations in this construction through 
Latinity see Schmalz, par. 82, note. 

The dative of the name is the rule in old Latin, as it was in the 
days of Donatus, according to his own testimony. Editors of 
Terence now write " Hecyraest," that is, the dative according to 
the old usage. Donatus' mistake in reading "Hecyra est" 
instead of " Hecyraest" is easily explained. 

Hec. 1. 2. no) " ' Dies est.' 'Apxaiw 'dies' non ' diebus est' 
dixit." Compare note on Hec. 5. 3. 2. Two things are noticeable 
here, the solitary example of " apxatas " for the usual " apxoitrftor," 
etc., and the reference to a usage largely post-classical. 

The ablative of time instead of the accusative is common in the 
familiar speech. Isolated examples of it occur as early as Cicero, 
Caesar and Sallust ; oftener in Livy and Tacitus. In the Spanish 
inscriptions and the ecclesiastical writers the ablative is universal. 
(See Donat. Hec. 3. 4. 47 ; Serv. A. 1. 47 ; Schmalz 54, n. 2.) 



28 



Verbs, 



Adel. 4. 2. 11) "'Etiam taces.' Antique pro* lace.'" Sic in 
Andria 5. 2. 8 (cf. Donat. ad loc.) 

Phorm. 3. 3. 9 shows the remains of a note probably on the 
same point. A well-known usage. (See Lor. Most. 383 ; Holtze 
2. 342 f.) 

Of " cave sis," Eun. 4. 7. 29, Don. says : " Quia imperativa 
verba sunt velut contumeliosa, addebant veteres ' sis ' quod sig- 
nificat ' si vis.' " Exx. are frequent in conversation. See the 
lexicons. (Holtze 2. 371 ff.) 

And. 4. 4. 36) " ' Tu sis sciens.' Eloquenter. Sic enim veteres 
pro ' scias ' dixere." 

The pres. part, with esse is rare. Most frequent in the comic 
writers. (Holtze 2. 5 ; Draeger 1. 293.) 

At Eun. 2. 2. 1 Don. points out the archaism in the personal 
use of " interest " (cp. note on Adel. 1. 1. 51). (Holtze 1. 21 ; 
Lor. Most. 407.) 

At Adel. 5. 8. 5 he states the rule for the use of" decet " in old 
Latin, that is, for Plautus, Terence and the archaistic writers, Sal- 
lust, Gellius and Apuleius. (Serv. A. 5. 350; Dz. Adel. 491.) 

Adel. 2. 3. 1, he justly looks upon the personal const, with opus 
est, nom. of thing needed, as a characteristic of the older writers. 
(See lexicons for examples.) 

Three or four comments occur on the old construction of utor, 
fungor, etc., with the accusative. Fungor (Phorm. 2. 1. 52). 

In older Latin and in Terence only with the accusative. 
(Schmalz 280, n. 2 ; Brix, Trin. 1 ; Dz. Phorm. 281 ; Langen, 
Archiv 3. 329 ff.) Utor (Schol. Bemb. Adel. 5. 3. 29 ; H. 2. 399). 

Terence's usage varies between accusative and ablative. In 
Plautus the accusative is more frequent. (Holtze 1. 270, 276, 
285.) Potior (Adel. 5. 4. 17). 

Compare Serv. A. 3. 278. 

Potior with the accusative does not occur in Cicero. Examples 
show that the construction comes from the " sermo vulgaris." 

For " cum illo nupta" instead of the classic " illi nupta " noted 
at Hec. 4. 1. 19 and 4. 4. 34, see Holtze 1. 96. 

Examples are confined, so far as I can discover, to Plautus and 
Terence. 

Phorm. 1. 3. 2) " ' Ubi in mentem eius adventi venit' 

Nota ' venire in mentem ' veteres non recordationis causa tan- 
tum sed etiam recogitationis considerationisque posuisse." Then 



29 

a second note : " Sic veteres genetivo casu proferebant ; ' in 
mentem adveniat,' Cicero" (Verres i. 71. 51). 

The first note seems a mere suggestion from the passage. The 
second draws attention to a usage that is mostly Ciceronian. 

Plaut. Rud. 685 ; Cic. Quin. 2. 6 ; De Orat. 2. 249, and often. 

On " excruciat animi," Phorm. 1. 4. 10, Don. says: "Genetivo 
casu veteres figurabant hanc locutionem." (Cp. notes on Adel. 
4. 4. 1 ; Eun. 2. 2. 43 ; Serv. A. 1. 14 ; 1. 96.) 

Owing to the use of animis in the plural (Cic. T. D. 1. 40. 96), 
Draeger (1. 481. 5) thinks "animi" in these expressions was 
originally an ablative form. See, however, Bell, " De Locativi in 
prisca Latinitate vi et usu," p. 58 ff. Cicero does not use animi 
with adjectives — sometimes with the verbs angi and pendere, but 
more frequently the ablative. Caesar uses neither. Livy, and 
especially Tacitus, carry the usage further. (Holtze 1. 331 ; 
Schmalz, p. 269.) 

Eun. prol. 17 and Phorm. 5. 8. 54, the old use of dono with the 
ablative and condono with the accusative. 

This category belongs to the free use of the accusative in early 
Latin (Draeg. 1. 358). With dono the abl. of the thing is the 
reigning construction. With two accusatives Hec. 849. Condono 
with two accusatives occurs rarely in Plautus, Terence and 
Afranius (Dz. Phorm. 947 ; Holtze 1. 286). 

Adel. 4. 5. 32) " ! Qui ilia (Dz. 666) consuevit.' Legitur et 
1 illam ' et dicebant veteres : ' hanc rem consuevit.' " Consuesco as 
an active verb is ante-classic and post-Augustan. (Lucret. 6. 397 ; 
Col. 6. 2. 9, etc.) 

On the old construction of indulgeo with the accusative noted 
at Eun. 2. 1. 16 see Holtze 1. 284 and cp. Diomed. K. 1. 320. 1. 

At Eun. 2. 2. 31, " Magis ' de illo' et ' de me'" he says, 
" veteres dicebant quam ut nos dicimus ' a me ' aut ' ab illo.' " 

De for ab seems to have been a mark of the familiar speech 
and finally took entire possession of the field in the Romance 
languages. (Schmalz, par. 137 ; Draeg. 1. 625 ff. ; Holtze 1. 56 ff.) 

"Quid sibi — velit," which Don. terms an archaism (Eun. prol. 
45), is a conversational usage, rare after Augustus but to be met 
with in all periods. (See lex. for exx.) 

The well-known comic usage of the future perf. for the future 
is noticed at Adel. 1. 2. 47. 

This subject is fully treated by Thomas, " Syntax du futur passe* 
de Ter.," p. 19 ff. 



(See also Speng. And. 381 ; Brix, Capt. 293 ; Lor. Most. 687 ; 
Dz. Adel. 127 ; Schmalz 256. 8.) 

Potential velim for volo noted at Adel. 4. 5. 47 as "antique" 
occurs often in Cicero and more or less frequently throughout the 
literature. Especially common in the comic writers. (Draeg. 
1. 306; Holtze 2. 138.) 

Adverbs, etc. 

And. 3. 2. 46 " \ Multo ' etiam comparativis antiqui adiunxerunt." 
Cp. note Phorm. prol. 11 and Charis. K. 1. 206. 4. 

Once in Ter. (Hec. 738). Often in the post-classic writers. 

(Schmalz, p. 373. n.) 

Olim cum dabam (And. 3. 3. 13). " Nos dicimus ' cum darem.' " 

Here olim has its original meaning of a demonstrative adverb, 
giving a more exact time to the following cum. Rare in later 
literature. 

In old Latin cum with the indie, is the rule. In later Latin the 
imperf. subj. is used, but not regularly. Terence gives four 
examples of imperf. indie: And. 96; 545; Eun. 310; Hec. 422. 

(See especially Luebbert, Gram. Stud. pp. 69 and 72 ; Brix, 
Trin. 523 ; Speng. And. 545.) 

Ne with the imperative instead of the subjunctive is noted at 
And. 3. 3. 11. Cp. note And. 5. 2. 27 ; especially Serv. A. 6. 544. 

The construction belongs to the people and is not used by the 
classic writers. The poets give only two exx., both from Ovid : 
H. 17. 164; A. A. 3. 129. (Schmalz 259. 37.) 

The elliptical use of fortasse with an infinitive, noted at Hec. 
3. 1. 33, belongs to Plautus and Terence. (Holtze 1. 265 and 268.) 

With the note on postquam with the present indie. (Phorm. 
prol. 1) compare Schol. Bemb. (H. 2. 376). 

The usage is not infrequent in the comic writers. Afterwards 
very rare. (See Weiss, Livy 22. 1. 1 ; Krebs 889 ; Draeg. 2. 584.) 

III. — General Remarks. 
1. Derivation. 

Here Donatus, like most other Latin grammarians, is often 
absurd and fanciful. The following may serve as examples of 
some of the derivations he quotes from "the ancients " : 

And. 3. 2. 41, Tandem from tamen-|-idem. The note is 
somewhat obscure. Adel. 2. 1. 28, Lora from laura. Adel. 3. 3. 



5, Ganeum " dn6 ras yas quod ipsa sit in terra, etc." Phorm. i. 2. 
57, Forma is connected with fervor, fornax, forceps. (See 
Teuber, Prg. Eberswald, 1881, p. 11.) 

On "meridie" Adel. 5. 3. 62, he does better: " ' meridiem ' 
dixerunt veteres quasi ' medidiem,' r pro d posito propter cogna- 
tionem horum inter se litterarum." (Varro, L. L. 6. 4 ; Cic. Orat. 
158 ; Quin. 1. 6. 30 ; Prise. 551 P.) 

Stowasser, Archiv 1. 273, says that from medidies we should 
get medies rather than meridies. The original form is better: 
meri die " Am hellen Tage." (Stolz, Lat. Gram. 174. 5 ; Usener, 
Jahrb. 117. 74.) 

See, however, Hintner on meridies, Separat-Abdr. aus d. 
Jahres-Ber. liber das K. K. akad. Gym. in Wien, 1885-6; M. 
Warren, Am. J. Ph. 7. 228 ff. 

2. Orthography, etc. 

Eun. prol. 10 Don. says : " ' Thesaurum.' Latini veteres secun- 
dum Graecos sine 71 littera proferebant." 

A consideration of the original Greek word was doubtless a cause 
of this statement. To be reversed. " The spontaneous growth of 
the nasal n before s is shown in words like thensaurus, etc. Its 
omission belongs to low or very late Latin. In the early lan- 
guages its omission is customary in a few words, and sometimes 
in inscriptions." Stolz 153. 17. 

Hec. 2. 14, Don. says of " remmotum " that among the ancients 
doubling was the rule in liquid verbs. Cp. note Phorm. prol. 22 
" rellatum." 

Not so much doubling as assimilation of the original d in red. 
(Lachm. Lucret. p. 203 ; Dz. Phorm. 21.) 

On old q for c (" coquus ") Don. Adel. 3. 3. 69, see Stolz 171. 
48. On u for y (" sura ") Don. Hec. 1. 2. 7, see Stolz 138 and 
Cic. Orat. 48. 160. 

So much for the archaisms of Terence mentioned by Donatus. 
As was intended, only those notes have been considered which 
expressly mention some ancient usage as such. Doubtless their 
number would be considerably increased if we had the original 
commentary of Donatus. 

With his keen and generally correct feeling for an archaism, it 
is hardly to be supposed that forms like szcm,/axim, infins. in ier 
and the like were passed over without any remark as to their 
character. 



32 

Hence I should judge that such notes as give a translation of 
these forms are brief registrations of comments once more satis- 
factory : e. g. And. 4. 4. 21 ; Eun. 1. 2. 84; Adel. 1. 2. 36 ; And. 
5. 1. 13, etc. 

It is vain to hope that we shall ever recover the original com- 
mentary of Donatus. But I cannot agree with Hahn in thinking 
that it has almost entirely disappeared. 

From the very beginning its integrity has been interfered with, 
because it was always considered, and perhaps justly, merely a 
practical aid to the interpretation of Terence, not a literary monu- 
ment to be preserved in its entirety. Compression and conse- 
quent confusion are the most serious evils that have overtaken it. 

One may well say of the Donatus commentary what Martial 
says of his epigrams : " Sunt bona, sunt quaedam mediocria, sunt 
mala plura." 

Certainly most of the remarks on archaisms (except Adel. prol. 
1. 1 ; 2. 1. 22 ; Eun. 1. 2. 9 ; Phorm. 1. 3. 5 ; 5. 1. 16 ; Hec. 1. 2. 
7; And. 1. 1. 79; 1. 5. 16) are "bona," and, whoever their 
author or authors may be, bear the light of modern work in the 
same lines, and prove a not inconsiderable help in the study and 
appreciation of the elder literature. 






LIFE. 

I was born in Pawlet, in the State of Vermont, on the 6th of 
December, 1862. 1 entered the public schools at Rutland, in the 
same State, at the age of nine, where I passed through the usual 
course of study necessary as a preparation for college. In the 
autumn of 1880 I entered the University of Vermont, at Bur- 
lington, and was graduated from there as a Bachelor of Arts in 
1884. My instructor in Latin was Prof. John E. Goodrich, for 
whose wise counsel and unvarying interest in my welfare I shall 
always be grateful. 

In October, 1885, I came to the Johns Hopkins University, at 
Baltimore, Maryland, where I have remained since that time 
engaged in the study of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. My hearty 
thanks are due to Professors Gildersleeve, Warren and Bloom- 
field for the advice, encouragement, and, above all, the inspiration 
they have so freely given me. 

Kirby Smith. 

Baltimore, April, 1889. 



] 



'••^» 



